War With Iran Or World War III?

It seems that the Bush administration, and virtually the entire US political/military system, is now a runaway train, moving at full pace down a track of its own design and making. Whether its the use of unilateral sanctions, the labelling of the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organisation, mysterious Israeli air raids on Syrian soil, US missing nukes (the list goes on), it seems the US leadership has its twitchy trigger finger at the ready and is praying for the Iranians to make a wrong move (and, after some length of time no excuse is presented to them they'll simply create one).

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 it was seen as a localised war, ie. Gulf War II, the US vs. Iraq, nothing more and nothing less. So how come the impending clash with Iran is being touted as World War III? This suggests that the powerful and mighty in Washington are well aware that by taking on Iran they'll be taking on a whole lot more. If this is so, why do they remain so keen to continue down this route? Why is it that these people talk of the prospect of global warfare with so much enthusiasm and joy? Is it really war with one nation that they want or something far wider and more dangerous? If it really is a world conflict they desire, for what reason?

Bearing in mind the strong religious ties the Bush administration has and also bearing in mind the religious rights wish for global warfare in order to fulfil their 'prophecies', should the reigns of power not be taken off them before they take us over the brink? At a certain level I believe there is an opposition of sorts at work trying to at least thwart attempts at hitting Iran (eg. the military whistle-blowers who may have prevented some kind of nuclear false flag operation, timed to occur when the Israelis struck out at the mysterious facility in Syria) but more is needed. The media need to get more proactive along with the politicians. Brave individuals are trying valiantly to hold the wall but they can't do it all. Democracy has been taken away and, although the majority are blissfully unaware, has been replaced by a dictatorship. We live in dangerous times and the American people are sleepwalking into a disaster much like the citizens of Germany in the 1930's.

US Closing In As H-Hour For War Approaches

As tensions mount over the fate of the 15 UK marines and navy personnel held by Iran, an increasingly impatient US conducts provocative war games 'aimed at blocking smuggling of nuclear weapons' (according to Bush mouthpiece Fox News) and leans on its British allies to take events to the next level. Prime Minister Blair obliges, warning of a 'different phase' if the situation isn't resolved soon. The Americans accuse the Brits of being too soft and indecisive with their reaction to the detention of its people, although what the UK can do, apart from complain to the UN, has yet to be explained.

What needs to be remembered is that this development is rooted in an argument over who was overstepping a long-disputed border (remember that? OK, it was nearly a week ago....). Either side could be right or wrong and until that is established, or until both sides agree to disagree and settle up, no move should be made by anyone. We are in a mindset where if Iran is found to be in the wrong concerning just about anything, thats good enough to send in the cruise missiles and stealth bombers. It is not. The UN resolution is not a enough; the US accusations of Iranian meddling in Iraq is not enough; the arrest and detention of the 15 British service personnel isn't either. As with Iraq, there is no immediate threat and no legitimate reason.

The PNAC followers may want to stick to the timeline and gameplan decided upon when this new foreign policy fiasco was first introduced early in the Bush presidency, but in case they haven't noticed, the plan is not working. Its been a disaster and trying to distract from one disaster by creating another isn't the answer.

The Neocon Dream Uncovered

One of the most informative accounts about what's going on regarding US domestic and foreign policy, from an insider who knows the real deal. This should be read with alarm by everyone outside of the powerful neocon elite, so get in the foxhole and be enlightened......

Read the full story here.

clipped from www.afterdowningstreet.org

Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran

James Harris: There you go, we're in a foxhole, so we're on the same team.

Fox News Filters The Truth Yet Again

The US carried out two seperate airstrikes yesterday on two different locations in Iraq. One was in Arab Jabour, a mostly Sunni Muslim suburb south of Baghdad, and resulted in the deaths of 8 suspected terrorists. The other occured at a similar time yesterday evening, in Mosul, and led to the deaths of 8 Kurdish troops and wounding six more. The Kurds were part of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a supporter of the U.S. in Iraq and the attack was a blue-on-blue incident (ie. friendly fire).

The news of both attacks were released to the media at the same time this morning and early reports by news outlets covered both incidents - except for good old reliable Fox News. They made the effort to mention that during the Arab Jabour raid 'no U.S. forces or Iraqi civilians were injured' and that 'Iraqi soldiers did not take part in the clashes' - almost makes you feel that the war in Iraq is being won, doesn't it? Thanks Fox for being so fair and balanced. 'We Report, You Decide'? No comment.

The Truth Behind The Iraq Invasion And A Possible US Conflict With Iran

I originally wrote the following in January 2006 and have decided to resubmit it, with minimal alterations, because of its increasing relevance to the current situation in the US/Middle East:

It is now openly obvious why the US (and its 'coalition of the willing') invaded Iraq (without UN backing) in 2003 under the banner ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. It wasn't for the reasons the Bush administration maintained at the time (suspected WMD, a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, etc. etc.) but to do with the petrodollar. Many people suspected that oil was the underlying reason but few were aware of the more important need to maintain the 'petrodollar recycling' system.

Petrodollar recycling was introduced by the US in the early 70's, when Middle Eastern countries were beginning to produce oil of their own under the OPEC group of nations. Previously, most of the worlds oil was supplied by the US and all trading in this market was carried out using US dollars. When OPEC came into competition with the US oil giants, the Americans struck a deal with their Middle Eastern counterparts in which they would supply Saudi Arabia, etc. with arms as long as OPEC traded their oil in dollars. This meant that if a country wanted oil, for example Japan, they had to sell to the US their home-produced products (Toyota cars for example) in order to raise the necessary dollars to buy their oil from an OPEC country. These dollars were then invested back into the US by, for example, Saudi Arabia and this left the US in a great position. As long as they could print enough dollars to meet demand they would continue to dominate the worlds oil markets and would (and did) make a fortune doing so. This is what ultimately has made the US into the worlds only superpower, with the ability to afford the necessary military might to match.

Thirty years later, at the turn of the millenium, this cosy arrangement came under threat. Saddam Hussein announced his intention to begin trading oil in the other world currency - Euros - and began doing so before the US invasion in 2003. This gave the US serious concerns. With a massive dept of trillions of dollars (made worse by the habit of the average US citizen to spend far more than they saved, using credit to do so) the US could not afford to stand by and watch the petrodollar recycling system be undermined. The risk to the country's status as sole superpower was massive and with the debt the prospect of US economic collapse was very much a reality.

When elected into office, George Bush had as priority #1 to sort out this petrodollar threat by gaining control of Iraq and in 2003 he invaded. One of the first post-war actions was to revert the country's oil trading currency back to the US dollar, even though this meant that approximately 13% of Iraqs trading value was instantly lost (because the Euro was worth more than the dollar at the time). The invasion was also to serve as an example to neighbouring oil producers not to go down the same 'petroeuro' route.

Unfortunately, Iran has plans to begin trading its oil in Euros and Saudi Arabia is giving serious consideration to the idea. Should this happen the US is likely to economically implode, with its massive military very quickly becoming an unaffordable asset. America would become little more than just another country and its global influence would be consigned to the history books, something that is regarded as unthinkable by the corporate elite.

So the US looks increasingly likely to carry out an attack on Iran, probably involving tactical 'battlefield' nuclear weapons (in an attempt to destroy underground installations there). It is not because the Iranians are close to producing their own nuclear arsenal (the Washington Post reported that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.” (see source) but rather to keep the petrodollar on track.

Wargame simulations carried out by the US resulted in the following conclusion being reached by Sam Gardiner, the retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the National War College for the past two decades: “After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.” The problem is, as was highlighted in the Iraq invasion and post-war years, that the neo-cons in the Bush administration are prone to acting illogically and against advice provided by people who know far better than themselves. Internationally-respected reporter Seymour Hearsh wrote the following in The New Yorker one year ago:

In my interviews [with former high-level intelligence officials], I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’ the former [CIA] intelligence official told me. But the [Bush administration officials] say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned – not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there."

However, a disturbing article by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi who, in an article entitled “In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,”, said:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Should the US decide to carry out such an attack on Iran, China would undoubtedly become involved, since its massive economic expansion is heavily reliant on oil from the region. The US is leading us down a road to potential global conflict in order to protect its dominance in the world oil markets and is seemingly likely to bring about the pre-conditions to justify an attack regardless of the consequences. Hopefully there will be no 'coalition of the willing' giving Bush and Cheney some kind of international credibility and this may help to deter them from following their plans through, but we're surely in for a bumpy year, one in which the spectre of the US administration and its shadowy backers showing its true colours is quite horrifying.

How the US war with Iran will play out

It seems so obvious, particularly since the Iraq 'thing', how the US (with help from the UK) plan to build up to war with Iran. It appears that they are employing the same method as with the pre-Iraq war :

"A report, put together by Campaign Iran and published at the end of 2006, revealed that Daily Telegraph's political editor Con Coughlin, the man who 'broke the story' of Iraq’s 45 minute WMD capacity, was behind 16 articles containing unsubstantiated allegations against Iran over the past 12 months. The Press Complaints Commission has launched its third investigation into Coughlin in as many months after a number of high level complaints about his latest article on Iran. The investigation is looking at an article by Coughlin on 24 January relying on an unnamed "European defence official" alleging that North Korea is helping Iran prepare a nuclear weapons test."

(source: UK Indymedia)

So convinced am I of the certainty of this that I predict the following train of events:

1. the US struggles to bring the Iraq situation under control and the Iraqi government continues to fail to meet the benchmarks set by the US.

2. these failings, coupled with the 'threat of nuclear weapons' scenario, causes an increase in tensions between the US and Iran.

3. a specific incident, maybe a 'terrorist' attack on US soil or something equally horrific, provides the pretext needed for a first strike by the US against Iran.

4. the war, far from being a short-sharp, shock-&-awe experience, drags out and draws in neighbouring countries (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc) into a bigger, uncontrollable and unpredictable confrontation.

5. World War III rages on relentlessly for several decades, with every nation in Europe, the Middle East and Asia being directly involved at some point.

And all this to save the petrodollar from collapsing, sending the already-bankrupt US economy into free-fall.

Hey, Bush, here's that holy crusade you wanted! You better hope that there IS a second comming and your ass gets raptured good and early, since there will be plenty of people wanting to see you hang as a war criminal after all this.......

CIA Director Quietly Buys Nuclear Attack Insurance

From The Onion:

BETHESDA, MD—According to sources at the Allstate Insurance Company, CIA Director Michael Hayden purchased nuclear-attack insurance Wednesday, paying a $100,000 monthly premium for his homes in suburban Washington, Pittsburgh, and near Cheyenne Mountain, CO. "It's a typical nuclear policy that protects the insured from damages caused by fallout—pretty straightforward, though at that monthly rate, I don't usually sell too many of them," said Bethesda, MD–based Allstate agent Gary Rutter, adding that Hayden paid for the first premium with a certified bank check to guarantee that the policy would take effect no later than next Monday. "After he purchased the insurance, he asked again if everything was set for Monday. I assured him it was, and then he left." Insurance agents throughout the D.C. area reported selling 35 such policies in the last week, all to high-ranking government officials.